Strake Jesuit Lee Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Churchill | 2 | St Marys Hall WK | Nelson Okunlola |
|
|
| |
| Churchill | 3 | Cypress Woods AT | Breigh Plat |
|
|
| |
| Churchill | 5 | Dripping Spring AS | Patrick Fox |
|
|
| |
| Contact | 1 | Contact | Contact |
|
| ||
| Grapevine | 4 | Garland LY | Allison Aldridge |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 5 | Clements AK | Jack Quisenberry |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Doubles | Cooper City NR | Blake Andrews, Devin Hernandez, Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 1 | Brentwood SR | Devin Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 2 | Harvard Westlake OF | Alex Dumas |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 3 | Coppell HA | Tate Weston |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 6 | Westwood PM | Chris Theis |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 1 | Dwight-Englewood EK | Devin Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 4 | Northland Christian LB | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 5 | Immaculate Heart JL | Eric He |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | Doubles | Harker DS | Sam Larson, Kristiana Baez, Colton Gilbert |
|
|
| |
| TFA | 2 | Mcneil KJ | Elmer Yang |
|
|
| |
| TFA | 4 | Plano East AW | Ishan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| TFA | 6 | Mcneil AR | Nelson Okunlola |
|
|
| |
| Valley | 1 | San Mateo YR | Patrick Fox |
|
|
| |
| Valley | 4 | Iowa City West ST | Ian Matsuzeski |
|
|
| |
| Valley | 5 | Millard North EB | Nikita Tanguturi |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Churchill | 2 | Opponent: St Marys Hall WK | Judge: Nelson Okunlola AC - Kant |
| Churchill | 3 | Opponent: Cypress Woods AT | Judge: Breigh Plat AC - Kant |
| Churchill | 5 | Opponent: Dripping Spring AS | Judge: Patrick Fox AC - Kant |
| Grapevine | 4 | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Allison Aldridge AC - Kant |
| Grapevine | 5 | Opponent: Clements AK | Judge: Jack Quisenberry AC - Kant |
| Grapevine | Doubles | Opponent: Cooper City NR | Judge: Blake Andrews, Devin Hernandez, Holden Bukowsky AC - Kant |
| Grapevine | 1 | Opponent: Brentwood SR | Judge: Devin Hernandez AC - Kant |
| Greenhill | 2 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake OF | Judge: Alex Dumas AC - Kant |
| Greenhill | 3 | Opponent: Coppell HA | Judge: Tate Weston AC - Round Reports Kant |
| Greenhill | 6 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Chris Theis AC - Kant |
| Heart of Texas | 1 | Opponent: Dwight-Englewood EK | Judge: Devin Hernandez AC - Kant |
| Heart of Texas | 4 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Holden Bukowsky AC - Kant |
| Heart of Texas | 5 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart JL | Judge: Eric He AC - Kant |
| Heart of Texas | Doubles | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Sam Larson, Kristiana Baez, Colton Gilbert AC - COVID |
| TFA | 2 | Opponent: Mcneil KJ | Judge: Elmer Yang AC - Kant |
| TFA | 4 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Ishan Rereddy AC - Kant |
| TFA | 6 | Opponent: Mcneil AR | Judge: Nelson Okunlola AC - Kant Open Source |
| Valley | 1 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Patrick Fox AC - Kant |
| Valley | 4 | Opponent: Iowa City West ST | Judge: Ian Matsuzeski AC - Kant |
| Valley | 5 | Opponent: Millard North EB | Judge: Nikita Tanguturi AC - Kant |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Contact | Round: 1 | Opponent: Contact | Judge: Contact | 9/18/21 |
JF - AC - KantTournament: Churchill | Round: 2 | Opponent: St Marys Hall WK | Judge: Nelson Okunlola FrameworkEthics must begin a priori~A~ Empirical Uncertainty – evil demon could deceive us and inability to know others experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.~B~ Constitutive Authority – The meta-ethic is bindingness. Practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask why I should be a reasoner concedes it's authority since you're actively reasoning.~C~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.That justifies universality – a~ a priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience and b~ any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end.Additionally:~A~ Ethical frameworks are topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—focusing on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep excluding lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debater under my framework can easily be won without any prep since minimal evidence is required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~B~ Only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that's the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~C~ Practical identities – we find our lives worth living under practical identities such as student but that presupposes agency.Korsgaard 92 CHRISTINE M. Korsgaard 92 ~I am a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, where I have taught since 1991. From July 1996 through June 2002, I was Chair of the Department of Philosophy. (The current chair is Sean Kelly.) From 2004-2012, I was Director of Graduate Studies in Philosophy. (The current DGS is Mark Richard.) Before coming here, I held positions at Yale, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Chicago, as well as visiting positions at Berkeley and UCLA. I served as President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2008-2009, and held a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award from 2006-2009. I work on moral philosophy and its history, practical reason, the nature of agency, personal identity, normativity, and the ethical relations between human beings and the other animals~, "The Sources of Normativity", THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Clare Hall, Cambridge University 16-17 Nov 1992, BE Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.~1~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm: a~ Statements are true before false since if I told you my name, you'd believe me. b~ If anything is permissible, then so is the aff since there is nothing prohibiting us.~2~ Consequences Fail: a~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence so we can't predict. b~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. c~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify because we commit the end point of an action – but consequences cannot determine what step of action is moral d~ Yes act/omission distinction – there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral~3~ Contesting offense under the Aff framework is a voting issue. Reciprocity – I have to win my framework and beat the NC before I can access case, whereas you can collapse to either layer or dump on offense for 7 minutes as a no-risk issue so there's a skew. Key to fairness because it's definitionally equal access to the ballot.AdvocacyThus, the plan – Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. Definitions and enforcement in the doc and I'll clarify in cross.To clarify we'll defend implementation and a revision to the Outer Space Treaty that explicitly bans appropriation of outer space by private entities Offense~1~ Privatization is bad~a~ The OST prevents state-based sovereignty claims in space. But it does not clearly restrict corporations and even if it does it may imminently be changed. This means that regions could be under the exclusive control of corporations, while no government has authority.Ward 19 Peter Ward (Peter Ward studied journalism at the University of Sheffield before moving to Dubai, where he reported on the energy sector. After three years in the Middle East, he earned his master's degree in business journalism from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His work has appeared in GQ, Bloomberg Buisnessweek, The Economist, and Newsweek. He lives in New York City.) "The unintended consequences of privatising space," ScienceFocus (Online version of BBC Science Focus Magazine). Nov. 6th, 2019. https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/the-unintended-consequences-of-privatising-space/ SJMS ~b~ That's an instance of a unilateral will governing individuals while universal decision making is absent. This is an unjust state which violates people's freedoms and violates the categorical imperative.Cordelli 16 Chiara Cordelli ~Chiara Cordelli is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Her main areas of research are social and political philosophy, with a particular focus on theories of distributive justice, political legitimacy, normative defenses of the state, and the public/private distinction in liberal theory. She is the author of The Privatized State (Princeton University Press, 2020), which was awarded the 2021 ECPR political theory prize for best first book in political theory. She is also the co-editor of, and a contributor to, Philanthropy in Democratic Societies (University of Chicago Press, 2016). — cordelli@uchicago.edu~ "WHAT IS WRONG WITH PRIVATIZATION?", University of Chicago, Political Science and the College, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf UV~1~ Aff gets 1AR theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive and I can't check back. Aff theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer since the 1ar is too short to win both theory and substance and reasonability bites intervention since it's up to the judge to determine. No 2NR RVI, paradigm issues, theory, evidence, or new responses to AC arguments since they'd dump on it for 6 minutes and my 3-minute 2AR is spread too thin. No RVIs on AC arguments – incentivizes a 7 minute collapse that decks 1AR strategy.====~2~ Fairness is a voter: A~ Debate's a competitive game and requires objective evaluation. B~ Fairness best coheres a winner since if one debater had ten minutes to speak and the other had three there would be incongruence that alters ability to judge the better debater C~ Determines engagement in substance so it outweighs.==== AdvantageThe advantage is Debris:Privatization of space is unsustainable and increases debris – triggers the Kessler SyndromeThompson 21 ~Clive, 11/17/21, Clive Thompson is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, a columnist for Wired and Smithsonian magazines, and a regular contributor to Mother Jones. He's the author of Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World, and Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing our Minds for the Better. He's @pomeranian99 on Twitter and Instagram, "Get Ready for the "Kessler Syndrome" to Wreck Outer Space," OneZero, https://onezero.medium.com/get-ready-for-the-kessler-syndrome-to-wreck-outer-space-7f29cfe62c3e~~ Justin Privatization exponentially increases the curve but ending dangerous missions prevents it.Bernat 20 ~Pawel, 2020, Military University of Aviation, "ORBITAL SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONS AND THE GROWING THREAT OF KESSLER SYNDROME IN THE LOWER EARTH ORBIT," SAFETY ENGINEERING OF ANTHROPOGENIC OBJECTS, Volume 4, PDF~ Justin Debris causes nuclear war—-Noko, Iran, and China.Beauchamp 14 – Zack, 4/21/14, Zack Beauchamp is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers global politics and ideology, and a host of Worldly, Vox's podcast on foreign policy and international relations. His work focuses on the rise of the populist right across the West, the role of identity in American politics, and how fringe ideologies shape the mainstream. Before coming to Vox, he edited TP Ideas, a section of Think Progress devoted to the ideas shaping our political world. He has an MSc from the London School of Economics in International Relations and grew up in Washington, DC, where he currently lives with his wife, daughter, and two (rescue) dogs ~"How space trash could start a nuclear war," Vox, https://www.vox.com/2014/4/21/5625246/space-war-china-north-korea-iran~~ Justin | 1/8/22 |
MA - AC - KantTournament: TFA | Round: 2 | Opponent: Mcneil KJ | Judge: Elmer Yang FrameworkEthics must begin a priori:~A~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.~B~ Constitutive Authority – practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.~C~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.That justifies universality –a) a priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience and – b) any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:~1~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Ethical frameworks are topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—focusing on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep excluding lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debater under my framework can easily be won without any prep since minimal evidence is required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~3~ Only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that's the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~4~ Consequences Fail: a~ Yes act/omission distinction – there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral b~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences so we can't predict. c~ Induction is circular because it assumes nature will hold uniform d~ aggregation impossible – impossible to measure pain and pleasure e~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify~5~ Contesting offense under the Aff framework is a voting issue. Reciprocity – I have to win my framework and beat the NC before I can access case, whereas you can collapse to either layer or dump on offense for 7 minutes as a no-risk issue so there's a skew. Key to fairness because it's definitionally equal access to the ballot.Thus the advocacy: In a democracy, a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy.Offense~1~ Under the categorical imperative, objectivity must always be prioritized because anything else is a contradiction in conception of lying, if a lie were universalized then there would no longer be a conception of truth. This makes objectivity the highest layer that always comes first, even if you are advocating.~2~ Any claim that advocacy is constitutive to a free press is impermissible because the function of media is to report information—the constitutive purpose of the media is objective presentation of information because citizens have a right to be informed.Klein 20 ~Ian Klein, J.D. Candidate at the Texas AandM University School of Law, 2020, "Enemy of the People: The Ghost of the F.C.C. Fairness Doctrine in the Age of Alternative Facts." Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1809andcontext=hastings_comm_ent_law_journal~~/Kankee That affirms: if we all necessarily want our rights enforced and freedoms respected, we all necessarily agree to carry the responsibilities as well as the rights and privileges of citizenship to ensure the government can accurately act as a collective agentKorsgaard 18 ~The Claims of Animals and the Needs of Strangers: Two Cases of Imperfect Right. The Journal of Practical EthicsVolume 6, No. 1, June 2018. OPEN ACCESS. http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/the-claims-of-animals-and-the-needs-of-strangers-two-cases-of-imperfect-right/~~ SJ AME ~3~ A condition of reason is to be able to formulate ideas and ends based on both your private and public use of reason. This can only happen through public information exchange that is not connected to personal or subjective ties.Donald 03 ~James Donald, February 3, 2003; KANT, THE PRESS, AND THE PUBLIC USE OF REASON JAMES DONALD James Donald is Professor of Film Studies at the University of New South Wales, email: J.Donald@curtin.edu.au. https://javnost-thepublic.org/article/pdf/2003/2/3/~~ UV~1~ Aff gets 1AR theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive and I can't check back. Aff theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer since the 1ar is too short to win both theory and substance and reasonability bites intervention since it's up to the judge to determine. No 2NR paradigm issues since they'd dump on it for 6 minutes and my 3-minute 2AR is spread too thin. No RVIs on AC arguments – incentivizes a 7 minute collapse that decks 1AR strategy.AdvantageThe Populist PiS is in control of Poland. EU sanctions are effective, but the PiS continues to rebelMoskwa and Jefferson 20Moskwa, Wojciech, and Rodney Jefferson. "Poland's Populist Turn." Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 31 Oct. 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/poland.//SJEP The PiS controlled Polish media is key to guarantee future elections and sway voters to the PiS.Kalan 19 Kalan, Dariusz. "Poland's State of the Media." Foreign Policy, 25 Nov. 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/25/poland-public-television-law-and-justice-pis-mouthpiece/.//SJEP Biased polish media shifts public perception to the PiS and alters election outcomes.Gipson 21 Gipson, Abigail. "New Report: Poland's Public Media Serve as Propaganda Tool." International Press Institute, 17 Dec. 2021, https://ipi.media/new-report-polands-public-media-serve-as-propaganda-tool/.//SJEP Poland will never leave the EU, but PiS power ensures packed courts and decisions that deck legitimacy-that spills over and causes a massive crisisEconomist 21 Economist, Oct 21 2021, "Poland is a problem for the EU precisely because it will not leave," https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/10/14/poland-is-a-problem-for-the-eu-precisely-because-it-will-not-leave//SJJK | 3/10/22 |
SO - AC - COVIDTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Sam Larson, Kristiana Baez, Colton Gilbert | 10/18/21 |
SO - AC - KantTournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brentwood SR | Judge: Devin Hernandez FramingEthics must begin a priori:~A~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.~B~ Constitutive Authority – practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.~C~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It's impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedomThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:~1~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn't solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can't lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can't assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ Frameworks all share equal value. Weighing between them becomes infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That means contestation is vacuous which means a locus of moral duty is sufficient since it has an uncontested obligatory power.~3~ Ethical frameworks are topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—focusing on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep excluding lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debater under my framework can easily be won without any prep since minimal evidence is required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~4~ Only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that's the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~5~ Fairness – contesting the framework moots 6 min of offense creating a 7-13 skewAdvocacyPlan text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines during pandemics.Here's spec – enforcement through limited IP waivers solve – patent term extensions are normal means and solves innovation and scale-up.Young and Potts-Szeliga 21 ~Roberta; Counsel in Seyfarth's Litigation department and Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation practice groups in Los Angeles; Jamaica Potts-Szeliga; Partner in Seyfarth's Litigation department and Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation practice groups in Washington, DC. She also provides advice on FDA regulatory issues and is part of the firm's Health Care, Life Sciences, and Pharmaceuticals team; "A Third Option: Limited IP Waiver Could Solve Our Pandemic Vaccine Problems," IP Watch Dog; 7/21/21; https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/07/21/third-option-limited-ip-waiver-solve-pandemic-vaccine-problems/id=135732/~~ Justin Offense~1~ IPP unjustifiably restricts agents from setting and pursuing ends in healthcare because patents prevent people from taking part in scientific advancements in medicine – that violates freedom in multiple waysHale 18 (Zachary Hale, 4-4-2018, accessed on 8-22-2021, The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service, "Patently Unfair: The Tensions Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection - The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service", https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/04/patently-unfair/) BHHS AK ~2~ IPP is inconsistent with free market principlesKinsella 11 (Stephan Kinsella, 5-25-2011, accessed on 8-23-2021, Foundation for Economic Education, "How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market | N. Stephan Kinsella", https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/) BHHS AK That affirms: Free market economies are the only ones that allow people to be free to pursue their own interests.Richman 12 ~Sheldon Richman, 8-5-2012, "The Free Market Doesn't Need Government Regulation," Reason, https://reason.com/2012/08/05/the-free-market-doesnt-need-government-r/~~ SJ AME Underview~1~ Permissibility and presumption affirm: ~A~ Negating an obligation requires proving a prohibition – they prohibit the aff action. ~B~ If agents had to reflect on every action they take and justify why it was a good one we would never be able to take an action because we would have to justify actions that are morally neutral ie drinking water is not morally right or wrong but if I had to justify my action every time I decided upon a course of action I would never be able to make decisions.~2~ Aff gets 1AR theory – its dtd, ci, and the highest layer of the round – otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and there's no way to check against this. The 1ars too short to rectify abuse and adequately cover substance====~3~ Fairness is a voter – A~ Debate's a competitive game and requires objective evaluation. B~ Determines engagement in substance so it outweighs. C~ Jurisdiction – every argument you make concedes the authority of fairness: i.e. that the judge will evaluate your arguments. Hack against them if they contest this since that's the most unfair thing to do ==== ~4~ Aff reasonability with a brightline of structural abuse and drop the arg – 1ARs need some leeway since they go into the round unaware but the neg is reactive – aff needs their constructive ground to stick since else I lose 6 minutes but negs can recover with long later speeches.~5~ Only the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 ~Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled "Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions." He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); "WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity," IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721~~ Justin ~6~ Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
1/8/22 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
1/8/22 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
1/8/22 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
10/17/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
10/18/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
10/18/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
3/10/22 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
3/11/22 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
3/12/22 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | daniellee7202004@gmailcom |
|